Representative Karen A.
Yarbrough, a Democratic member of the Illinois State
Assembly, introduced a resolution calling for the
impeachment of President George W. Bush. House Joint Resolution 125 was
introduced on April 20, 2006 with two co sponsors,
Representatives Sara Feigenholtz and Eddie Washington, also
both Democrats. Derided by Thomas Jefferson as “scarcely a
scarecrow,” the presidential impeachment process is a rarity
in United States history. The impeachment of federal judges
is more common but also a rare event.

When invoked
impeachment charges have always originated in the House of
Representatives. After hearings, a vote is taken on each
charge in the impeachment resolution. Given majority
approval, a delegation from the House takes the case for
impeachment to the Senate for a formal trial. The Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court presides with House members
serving as prosecutors, the president’s lawyers for the
defense, and the Senators as the jury. Only Presidents
Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton were impeached
by the House of Representatives. In both cases, Senate
trials failed to find them guilty of any charge.

Jefferson’s Revenge

There is a little known set of
supplementary rules for both the US Senate and House of
Representatives developed by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson
was clear on his opposition to centralized federal power and
frequently sought balances giving states greater liberties
and rights. Jefferson’s rules, Section 603,
state:

Inception of impeachment
proceedings in the House: … there are various methods of
setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on
the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by
charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred
to a committee for examination; by a resolution dropped in
the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a
message from the President; by charges transmitted from
the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand
jury…”

The language in Jefferson’s
parliamentary guidelines is clear. State legislatures can
set “an impeachment in motion” with a “Joint Resolution”
approved by the legislature (both the state Senate and
Assembly). No state has taken advantage of this provision.
In fact, it is so obscure; the majority of Vermont
legislators who asked for impeachment did so in a formal
letter to the House of Representatives rather than invoking
Jefferson’s Rule 603.

Illinois Joint Resolution 125

Bush
is charged with the following “high crimes and misdemeanors”
in Representative Yarborough’s resolution
(summary):

1. Ordering the National
Security Agency to spy on American citizens without a
warrant (a “felony”).2. Violating the Torture Convention
of the Geneva Conventions, “a treaty regarded as supreme law
by the United States Constitution;”3. Holding American
and other citizens as “prisoners of war without a charge or
trial; 4. Manipulating intelligence to start the Iraq
war “resulting in the deaths of large numbers of Iraqi
civilians and causing the United States to incur loss of
life, diminished security and billions of dollars in
unnecessary expenses; and, 5. Leaking “classified
national secrets to further a political agenda” thus
exposing U.S. agents “to potential harm and retribution
while simultaneously refusing to potential harm and
retribution while simultaneously refusing to investigate the
matter.”

Noting that the Republican
controlled Congress failed to investigate the matter, the
resolution invokes the powers under Section 603 of the
Jefferson rules. The resolution reaches its summary by
arguing that:

“the State of Illinois
has good cause to submit charges to the U. S. House of
Representatives under Section 603 that the President of the
United States has willfully violated his Oath of Office to
preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States; and be it further

RESOLVED, That George W.
Bush, if found guilty of the charges contained herein,
should be removed from office and disqualified to hold any
other office in the United
States.

Each of these charges is a
grave violation of the oath of office and some of them
represent potential criminal charges against President Bush
should he be impeached. The proposed action is unusual since
it has two parts. Bush would both removed from office and
“disqualified to hold any other office.”

Impeachment of
a president or other federal office holder allows only for
removal from office. Further financial penalties, jail
time, etc. are optional for the president after he is
removed from office. There is an ongoing debate over the
ability of prosecutors to indict a sitting president.
Although the language of the Constitution seems to allow
this, there are points of tradition and interpretation used
to argue against the practice.

Flight of Fancy or
Emerging Reality

Bush’s popularity ratings have taken
a nose for the past two years. The only point that he
approached 50% was on Election Day 2004. For months prior
to that day and subsequently, his popularity has trended
downward. His most recent approval rating was only 33% as
measured by the sympathetic Fox News public opinion poll.
His disapproval rating is in the 60% range in almost all
polls. Nearly two out of every three Americans strongly
disapprove of Bush. State by state polling shows only four
states in which Bush has an approval rating over 50%.

Despite this, the Democratic congressional delegation has
been reluctant to even mention impeachment as a strategy.
When Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat, Minnesota,
introduced a Censure Resolution, he was criticized by
Republicans and also some members of his own party. At this
point, the bill proposed in Illinois has stimulated no
comments from leaders of either party. Should the joint
resolution pass, there is little doubt a major controversy
will ensue.

Illinois is a state dominated by the
Democratic Party. Democratic presidential candidates
carried the state by 60% margins in the last two elections.
The governor and the legislature are controlled by the
Democrats. At this time, the likelihood of passage is
unknown. Coverage has been almost exclusively on internet blogs and one national
opinion magazine, The Nation, in an article by John
Nichols.

The Illinois Resolution
Sponsors

(Left to right) Illinois
State Assembly Representatives Karen Yarborough, sponsor;
Sara Feigenholtz and Eddie Washington, co-sponsors. All
Democrats, the three representatives are from the Chicago
area.

Karen Yarborough is from a political
family. Her husband holds political office in their home
town, Maywood. She is a “third generation entrepreneur,” as
she describes herself and owns an insurance agency.
Feigenholtz is a political and community activist form the
north side of Chicago. Washington served in local
government and as head of a regional Urban League chapter
prior to his election in 2003. The three are all active in
serving their constituents and not known as ideologues.
Their action on April 20th will place them front and center
in one of the greatest ideological struggles in American
history. Should Illinois pass on the resolution, this novel
story may emerge into a national issue of grave
importance.

Scoop is NZ's oldest and largest independent online news service. We have described ourselves as fiercely independent for more than a decade and we would like to stay that way... By making Scoop’s connection to the public and contributors more explicit we hope to achieve the level of support and sustainability that will enable Scoop to fly as a community asset. More>>

There had been a fortnight of fevered buildup. Yet here we are in the aftermath of the February 28 showdown between the new Syriza government in Greece and the European Union “troika” and… no-one seems entirely sure what happened. Did the asteroid miss Earth? More>>

ALSO:

Brendon McCullum's team has achieved impressive results in the lengthy buildup to the contest and they deserve to be among the favoured teams, but... Their results need to be kept in perspective and fans should get a much better idea of the Black Caps chances when they face England in the capital on Friday. More>>

The economic contribution of businesses and people is often quite unrelated to their taxable incomes. EHome, as a relatively new company, may have never earned any taxable income. Its successors almost certainly will earn income and pay tax. Yet it was eHome itself who made the biggest contribution by starting the venture in the first place. More>>

ALSO:

Alastair Thompson: Oh how the mighty have fallen. Once journalism was possibly a noble profession, though that is certainly now, to quote our Prime Minister, a 'contestable' notion. It certainly seemed at least a little noble when I joined the ranks of reporters in 1989 . But ... More>>